Trespassing, or not!

[freediver111]

Here's my story:

A few weeks ago a buddy and I took the dogs for a hike but we also had our packs and binos to do a little shed hunting/check out potential new hunt areas.

We were driving up a fairly major road and had our GPS' with OnXmaps software (the most up to date ones from Sept 2015 for Oregon).

My buddy tells me to pull over since there's a nice chunk of BLM that borders some State land (DOT) and then onto a huge piece of BLM that we wanted to hike.

We follow the GPS, go hike, find a few old sheds, come back to the truck after 3-4 hours. Waiting at our truck is a another truck eyeing us with binos. As we get closer another truck pulls up behind mine, then another pulls up in a field we were crossing. Guy gets out (gun on his hip puffing his fat chest out) to tell us we're trespassing. We show him our GPS' and state that according to our info, we're on BLM, and we crossed state, then onto more BLM. He admits that he knows nothing about GPS' and directs us to go talk to the ranch manager whose parked behind my truck.

We do so, and the first thing out of the guys mouth is he knows it's state land but doesn't want us to cross there because we disturb his cows and he pays good money to run cows there and there's lots of other land for us to hike on so we should just avoid this area. We exchange some choice opinions, some nice words are said by both of us, and he leaves.

Monday rolls around and I decide to call the County assessor. I look up the tax lot map and they tell me it's private. I call OnxMaps and they tell me they have it marked as State DOT and that they get the info from the County. I call State and they say it doesn't appear they own that parcel. I was going to call law enforcement to claim I was being harassed, which I was, but with the state land looking iffy I decide to leave it alone and not cross what is marked as State in the future.

Fast forward two weeks when I get a visit by one of our local County sheriff deputies. He tells me the ranch manager claims I was trespassing and wants me cited. I tell the sheriff the story, he was very nice and said it seems I did my due diligence but he'll look into a little more but not to worry.

This Saturday I was driving to visit a friend and see a county sheriff truck parked in the exact same spot that we were parked during this incident. I decide to stop and talk to him (different guy, gathering info) figuring he was investigating the case. I had my GPS with me and show him that we are standing on BLM, crossed what is marked as State, and onto a huge tract of BLM. He confesses that he doesn't have a GPS with that chip, and just then a State fish and game trooper drives by so he flags him down. State trooper busts out his GPS and confirms that we are on BLM, but his older version of onxmaps doesn't show the state land. We told them that we feel we did our due diligence, but the County deputy states that we could have done more, like call the assessor office beforehand. I didn't argue because I'm not trying to make anyone mad at me, but I thought it was a little ironic that he pulled over the Stater to ask him what his GPS said!...and it proved were on BLM. I kind of think what's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!?!?

So anyway here I sit wondering if I'm going to get cited for trespass. The picture the ranch hand gave the deputy of my truck was on BLM land, and he claims it was private so I know he's wrong there. He also has a reputation for being a royal jerk and trying to run people off public land surrounding the ranch he manages for some rich dude. It's the whole state or not state land that has me a little worried. I'm pretty much convinced I did my due diligence, and if the ranch manger told me it was state that kind of seals the deal, even if it may not be.

If to comes down to a conviction, I'll likely hire a lawyer to fight it, just because I think it's wrong to cite me for something like this.

Any legal experts out there?

Moral of the story, OnXmaps can be wrong, maybe?!?!?!

 

[dotman]

If you need a lawyer you need the documentation onxmaps received stating it was public. If they had it marked in error they may be at fault.

 

[freediver111]

If you need a lawyer you need the documentation onxmaps received stating it was public. If they had it marked in error they may be at fault.

When I called them, they confirmed the map software states it's DOT land. They said they would look into further and call me back, but I haven't heard back yet, and I somehow doubt they'll give me any info proving they were wrong.
Doesn't onxmaps have some legal disclaimer that says anything they provide may not be 100% accurate and they absolve themselves from any legal responsibility?

 

[dotman]

Yeah not saying they will pay just that the error may be their fault, user beware of course. But if they received documentation stating it is public it just helps your case I would think.

If they marked it public in error, their fault, your fine. But I bet a judge would toss it being F&G uses the same mapping software.

 

[El Gavilan]

Go to the local BLM office and speak with one of their realty specialists. They have very good maps.

 

[squeekieslayer]

no offense man... it sucks that your gps map was off... but ultimately you were on private land, without permission... thus, you were trespassing. Do i think you should get cited? No. Do i think the land manager should be such an ass? NO. But by the law, you were not legally on that land. OnX does their best, but i guarantee that there is a disclaimer relieving them from any responsibility or litigation resulting from an error.

Could you fight it, YES. But ultimately you were tresspassing, plain and simple. You are best to hope nothing comes of it, and grin and bear it. Pay the fine and move on. MUCH MUCH cheaper than hiring a lawyer, assuming you would even find one that would take the case. If anything you would have to take the fine, then sue OnXmaps for damages. Way more than it is worth.

It sucks, i feel for you, many of us rely on these systems... and it a good lesson. Good luck

Joe

 

[COlineman78]

I would at least take a picture of onx showing it as state just in case they push an update before you have to fight it. I agree with dotman in that they probably have the same disclaimer that every mapping utility has that waives any fiscal liability, so they probably can't be sued to pay for your lawyer. But, as far as trespassing goes I think it'd be hard for a judge to cite you as the map clearly stated it was state land. Are we supposed to call state and county assessors before accessing any public land to make sure it hasn't been sold? I feel like that is an unreasonable burden. It sounds like the ranch manager doesn't even know who owns the land and therefore I wonder if he even has the right to be grazing his cattle on it.

 

[freediver111]

no offense man... it sucks that your gps map was off... but ultimately you were on private land, without permission... thus, you were trespassing. Do i think you should get cited? No. Do i think the land manager should be such an ass? NO. But by the law, you were not legally on that land. OnX does their best, but i guarantee that there is a disclaimer relieving them from any responsibility or litigation resulting from an error.

Could you fight it, YES. But ultimately you were tresspassing, plain and simple. You are best to hope nothing comes of it, and grin and bear it. Pay the fine and move on. MUCH MUCH cheaper than hiring a lawyer, assuming you would even find one that would take the case. If anything you would have to take the fine, then sue OnXmaps for damages. Way more than it is worth.

It sucks, i feel for you, many of us rely on these systems... and it a good lesson. Good luck

Joe

Yeah, I hear what you're saying but I'm not a fan of having anything like that on my record. I'm really not into breaking the law. I think I've gotten 2 speeding tickets in my life.

I'm just hoping it goes away and they toss it as a lesson learned. The sheriff deputy seemed to think that's what would happen since I proved due diligence. Doesn't hurt that the other sheriff relied on the state trooper to tell him we were on BLM. Also doesn't hurt the ranch manager agreed we were on state land, which may not be the case.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as "you were wrong, so you get a fine." The first deputy said this type of thing has gone to court before and was tossed because the accused showed due diligence.

 

[COlineman78]

Luckily it didn't happen during hunting season, so even if you do get a ticket you won't get any hunting repercussions. This is the part of the Oregon law that I think is of greatest dispute:

Open to the public means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.

Now it is probably intentionally vaguely worded, but to me since there was no marking and any reasonable person would assume that onX did their due diligence.

 

[ahlgringo]

Personally, I would not be worried at all. The only way you are going to get ticketed is if the sheriff is in the ranchers back pocket and he really wants to push forward with citations. Seriously- you did your due diligence. I doubt anyone on this forum regularly goes to the county assessors office in order to double check more commonly used maps in determining private boundaries. I would have done exactly what you did.

 

[elkguide]

Luckily it didn't happen during hunting season, so even if you do get a ticket you won't get any hunting repercussions. This is the part of the Oregon law that I think is of greatest dispute:



Now it is probably intentionally vaguely worded, but to me since there was no marking and any reasonable person would assume that onX did their due diligence.

Now that is as clear as mud!
Probably the best defense that you have, along with the Fish cop stating that it was.

 

[B.S.]

One other note in Oregon, my understanding is that for you to Trespass, the land must be posted per ORS 105.700, I could be wrong, but that is how I read this section:

105.700¹
Prohibiting public access to private land
• notice requirements
• damages

(1) In addition to and not in lieu of any other damages that may be claimed, a plaintiff who is a landowner shall receive liquidated damages in an amount not to exceed $1,000 in any action in which the plaintiff establishes that:
(a) The plaintiff closed the land of the plaintiff as provided in subsection (2) of this section; and
(b) The defendant entered and remained upon the land of the plaintiff without the permission of the plaintiff.

(2) A landowner or an agent of the landowner may close the privately owned land of the landowner by posting notice as follows:
(a) For land through which the public has no right of way, the landowner or agent must place a notice at each outer gate and normal point of access to the land, including both sides of a body of water that crosses the land wherever the body of water intersects an outer boundary line. The notice must be placed on a post, structure or natural object in the form of a sign or a blaze of paint. If a blaze of paint is used, it must consist of at least 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint, except that when metal fence posts are used, approximately the top six inches of the fence post must be painted. If a sign is used, the sign:
(A) Must be no smaller than eight inches in height and 11 inches in width;
(B) Must contain the words Closed to Entry or words to that effect in letters no less than one inch in height; and
(C) Must display the name, business address and phone number, if any, of the landowner or agent of the landowner.
(b) For land through which or along which the public has an unfenced right of way by means of a public road, the landowner or agent must place:
(A) A conspicuous sign no closer than 30 feet from the center line of the roadway where it enters the land, containing words substantially similar to PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING OFF ROAD NEXT _____ MILES; or
(B) A sign or blaze of paint, as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, no closer than 30 feet from the center line of the roadway at regular intervals of not less than one-fourth mile along the roadway where it borders the land, except that a blaze of paint may not be placed on posts where the public road enters the land.
(3) Nothing contained in this section prevents emergency or law enforcement vehicles from entering upon the posted land.
(4) An award of liquidated damages under this section is not subject to ORS 31.725 (Pleading punitive damages), 31.730 (Standards for award of punitive damages) or 31.735 (Distribution of punitive damages).
(5) Nothing in this section affects any other remedy, civil or criminal, that may be available for a trespass described in this section. [1999 c.933 §1]

 

[moxford]

Worth noting that in most states there are signage as well as possibly fencing restrictions to closing land to trespassing. It might be worth reading up on, in detail, for your area. Here's a starting point: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.700

IANAL, just trying to help shed light.

-mox

 

[RockyMtnHigh]

I'm a landman by trade, so this thread caught my eye. I spend a ton of time looking through state and public records to determine ownership, I would be willing to bet the BLM and State Management agency have the necessary info online to validate the ownership.

What county were you in? Now I have to satisfy my curiosity and look to see what info the State and County has to offer online

 

[mtnrunner260]

I would take the time to call the assessor again. I work with a couple of the local counties around here and a second call may yield a different answer.

 

[NorthernMN]

I have the Oregon onXmaps as well. I have found it to be invaluable since moving here last year. That said, there is always a chance their data is wrong and they always have a liability waiver written into their user agreement.

"We concentrate our efforts to providing the most current and accurate property boundaries and ownership available. These maps are for reference purposes only. Always obey property postings and use common sense to visually verify boundaries. Data is taken from the most current state and national government agency's land survey data. Because of the data compilation methods used by state agencies and onXmaps, the data is subject to error. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content or usability. User assumes all risk of use. These data do not constitute a legal survey; when seeking the definitive description of real property, consult the deed recorded at the local county courthouse or official land records in the respective Federal or State agencies."

 

[couesbitten]

I doubt you even have to call. Most counties have online mapping programs that will show you who the legal owner of a property is. I use them all the time when I'm exploring new areas that I'm interested in for hunting.

 

[HookUp]

Slightly off topic I heard the state of Wyoming is using OnXmaps for Law Enforcement purposes. Here in WA the wardens have electronic maps on their lap tops in their vehicles, not sure what the program is but I believe it is exclusive to them.

 

[DRP]

when you called the TAX Assessor and he told you it was private did you ask for the name of ownership? Ive spent my share of time in Grant county Oregon and have witnessed some of the local landowners put up fences on national forest that is adjacent to there land and then claim that land is theirs. Ive been harrassed by ranch hands before on these tracts of property that they dont own. Also have seen the landowners fly airplanes and try to herd the elk down the canyons from national forest to their property. I took video and turned them in. (they were cited).

 

[dangerousD]

If it were me, I'd document everything along with names of people you've spoken to at the various agencies. Sounds like you've certainly done due diligence. Even if it comes back that it being private and they cite you, I'd fight it just on principle or at least talk with the land owner with hat in hand about dropping charges, showing your intent was never to trespass. Never appear before a judge with a chip on your shoulder, but with a respective attitude showing your intent was never malicious. By letter of the law that may not get you out of it but you will feel better having tried. And like was posted above, some states require it be posted if it was private. That's NOT the case where I'm at in Nebraska but it's 99% (??) private land here.

I regret having not had my wife fight a speeding ticket 15 years ago that was false. My wife never speeds and had never had a ticket of any kind. After being stopped at a red light she was allegedly clocked one block later doing 56. I was with her and saw the cop when at the light and said watch your speed in the next block. When she got pulled over I thought maybe she had a tail light out or something and then cop says you're doing 56 in a 25! I got pissed, which didn't help matters... Nothing worse than being ticketed for something you didn't do. Only pleasure we got from that was the cop was later fired for many "issues" and left town. Moral of the story, plead your case if it comes down to it or possibly live with the regret of not trying.